Sydney nurse loses costs bid over neighbours’ minor boundary encroachments
A Sydney nurse lost her bid to recover legal costs after taking her neighbours to the Supreme Court over a carport post that crossed her boundary by about three centimetres. The judge found the encroachments were minor, the neighbours had not acted unreasonably and the case did not justify making them pay her costs.
The dispute began in 2022, when a survey found the post and parts of a garage eave and gutter crossed onto Jian Min Xu’s property; the structures had been in place since 1984. The neighbours removed the identified encroachments by May 2026, but rejected Xu’s demand for $56,649.37 and offered $20,000 to settle. Justice Ian Pike ordered both sides to pay their own legal costs, and Xu said she was considering an appeal.
In short
- A court rejected Xu’s bid to recover her legal costs.
- The carport post crossed the boundary by about three centimetres.
- Both sides must pay their own legal bills.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Xu could argue that property boundaries should be respected even when an encroachment is small, and that having to bring proceedings was a reasonable way to secure its removal after the survey identified it. She might also say that refusing her costs claim leaves an owner bearing substantial legal expense to enforce a clear property right, despite the neighbours ultimately removing the structures.
The case against
The neighbours could argue that the structures had stood since 1984, the encroachments were only a few centimetres, and they removed the identified parts once the dispute was raised. Given their conduct and their settlement offer, requiring them to pay Xu’s full legal costs could be disproportionate; each side bearing its own costs recognises the limited scale of the dispute.
Explained simply
Property boundaries set the legal limits of each owner’s land, and even small building overlaps can lead to disputes. In this case, a survey found that parts of a carport and garage extended a few centimetres onto Jian Min Xu’s property; the structures had stood there since 1984.
Xu and her neighbours disagreed over compensation and legal costs after the neighbours removed the identified overlaps. The case matters because courts can decide not only how a boundary dispute is resolved, but also whether one side must pay the other’s legal costs.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Judge’s crushing blow to woman who dragged neighbours to the Supreme Court over 3cm of land and rejected a $20k peace offering – and they don’t want to speak to her anymore”.